Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Philippe Andersson
Just to add my two cents, I had a Linux box up and running for 457 days lately. Didn't show any alarming symptom. And no, it didn't crash then. I just rebooted it myself. > > > Isn't there something similar in Linux? Except the limit is a bit over a > > > year? > > A bit more than that. The date

Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Jonathan Guthrie
On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Richard E. Hawkins Esq. wrote: > > Isn't there something similar in Linux? Except the limit is a bit over a > > year? > A bit more than that. The date rolls over in 2038 on 32 bit unices. Wrong limit. There's a counter in some MS-written systems (which includes OS/2, as I

Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Jim
"Richard E. Hawkins Esq." wrote: > henry harrumphed, > > > Isn't there something similar in Linux? Except the limit is a bit over a > > year? > > A bit more than that. The date rolls over in 2038 on 32 bit unices. Would that be called a Y2.038K bug in Linux slanguage?

Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Steve Lamb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 8 Apr 1999 20:12:37 -0400, Ian Peters wrote: >I could be wrong, but I think this bug had to do with your uptime >wrapping around. Your machine wouldn't crash, it just wouldn't know >how long it had been up. >Like I said, though, I could be w

Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Richard E. Hawkins Esq.
henry harrumphed, > Isn't there something similar in Linux? Except the limit is a bit over a > year? A bit more than that. The date rolls over in 2038 on 32 bit unices. --

Re: Windows 49er Bug

1999-04-09 Thread Ian Peters
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 04:14:07PM -0700, Henry Kingman wrote: > Isn't there something similar in Linux? Except the limit is a bit over a > year? I could be wrong, but I think this bug had to do with your uptime wrapping around. Your machine wouldn't crash, it just wouldn't know how long it had b